posting
01-12-2008, 06:25 PM
Kingston City Council is currently reviewing By-law 1, the rules of order for city council. I Hamilton there has been an unsuccessful move to tighten the rules on "surprise" motions (see below). Should Kingston City Council consider such a rule?
Clark fails to tighten rules
Brad Clark’s attempt (http://www.myhamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/A1CB904D-8C24-45F7-83CA-4DE71661873D/0/Jan09Motion71.pdf) to make it more difficult for councillors to introduce surprise motions was turned down last week in a 9-4 vote. Council agrees to waive its own rules about once every other meeting and Clark wanted that decision to require a two-thirds majority.
Council’s procedural bylaw (http://www.myhamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/E69C447D-F3E0-4B1B-9F72-A62CE20F59CD/0/03301asamended.pdf) says that “notice of all new motions … shall be given in writing at a meeting of council but shall not be debated until the next regular meeting of council”.
However, the following section of the bylaw allows the notice to be waived if the majority of councillors agree. Clark suggested that waiver be strengthened by requiring a two-thirds majority.
“Frequently members of this council are put in the position of actually having to debate an issue, or make a decision, more importantly, on an issue, and they actually don’t have the documentation to support the issue one way or the other, or they haven’t had an opportunity to review the matter or speak to staff about the matter or look into the matter,” he argued.
Tightening up the rules, Clark said, would prevent councillors from pushing a debate on an issue unless there was overwhelming council agreement to have that discussion.
“I think it’s fair, it’s more equitable, it’s a more democratic process to ensure that all of us have our rights as individual councillors respected,” he concluded.
In the 23 meetings of city council last year, the rules were waived 16 times – four of those in the two November meetings. The moves are usually unanimous but opposition to waiving the rules was recorded three times – all in November – with Clark opposed to all three.
Two of those motions (http://www.myhamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/875A1580-9BAF-40D5-9DB0-4CE92969A0C4/0/Nov14MinutesNov14.pdf) were made by Terry Whitehead – one to support the creation of a southern Ontario diversification fund, and the other to press the federal government about job losses in manufacturing. The third motion came from Sam Merulla on Nove mber 28 (http://www.myhamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/149F1C64-22A7-4582-9429-6A01000DB97F/0/Nov28MinutesNov28.pdf) to debate HSR fare reductions. Starting that discussion was unsuccessfully opposed by five of the fifteen councillors, but Merulla subsequently withdrew his motion and instead brought it forward with notice at the December meeting.
The only substantive response to Clark’s motion last week came from councillor Tom Jackson who said he sympathized with the intent and personally tries to avoid bringing surprise motions to council, but that he would not support increasing the approval requirement to two-thirds.
“I also understand that there is a timeliness and time sensitivity and often it’s the case that members of council bring issues, particularly more often from their wards than anything else,” he noted. “I think the current system with just a little more courtesy in place can still work by simple majority, and our democracies by and large work by simple majorities.”
Clark was supported by Mayor Eisenberger, Bob Bratina and Russ Powers. Voting against were Jackson, Chad Collins, Scott Duvall, Lloyd Ferguson, Brian McHattie, Sam Merulla, Dave Mitchell, Bernie Morelli, Maria Pearson and Terry Whitehead.
CATCH (Citizens at City Hall) updates use transcripts and/or public documents to highlight information about Hamilton civic affairs that is not generally available in the mass media. Detailed reports of City Hall meetings can be reviewed at www.hamiltoncatch.org (http://www.hamiltoncatch.org/).
Clark fails to tighten rules
Brad Clark’s attempt (http://www.myhamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/A1CB904D-8C24-45F7-83CA-4DE71661873D/0/Jan09Motion71.pdf) to make it more difficult for councillors to introduce surprise motions was turned down last week in a 9-4 vote. Council agrees to waive its own rules about once every other meeting and Clark wanted that decision to require a two-thirds majority.
Council’s procedural bylaw (http://www.myhamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/E69C447D-F3E0-4B1B-9F72-A62CE20F59CD/0/03301asamended.pdf) says that “notice of all new motions … shall be given in writing at a meeting of council but shall not be debated until the next regular meeting of council”.
However, the following section of the bylaw allows the notice to be waived if the majority of councillors agree. Clark suggested that waiver be strengthened by requiring a two-thirds majority.
“Frequently members of this council are put in the position of actually having to debate an issue, or make a decision, more importantly, on an issue, and they actually don’t have the documentation to support the issue one way or the other, or they haven’t had an opportunity to review the matter or speak to staff about the matter or look into the matter,” he argued.
Tightening up the rules, Clark said, would prevent councillors from pushing a debate on an issue unless there was overwhelming council agreement to have that discussion.
“I think it’s fair, it’s more equitable, it’s a more democratic process to ensure that all of us have our rights as individual councillors respected,” he concluded.
In the 23 meetings of city council last year, the rules were waived 16 times – four of those in the two November meetings. The moves are usually unanimous but opposition to waiving the rules was recorded three times – all in November – with Clark opposed to all three.
Two of those motions (http://www.myhamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/875A1580-9BAF-40D5-9DB0-4CE92969A0C4/0/Nov14MinutesNov14.pdf) were made by Terry Whitehead – one to support the creation of a southern Ontario diversification fund, and the other to press the federal government about job losses in manufacturing. The third motion came from Sam Merulla on Nove mber 28 (http://www.myhamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/149F1C64-22A7-4582-9429-6A01000DB97F/0/Nov28MinutesNov28.pdf) to debate HSR fare reductions. Starting that discussion was unsuccessfully opposed by five of the fifteen councillors, but Merulla subsequently withdrew his motion and instead brought it forward with notice at the December meeting.
The only substantive response to Clark’s motion last week came from councillor Tom Jackson who said he sympathized with the intent and personally tries to avoid bringing surprise motions to council, but that he would not support increasing the approval requirement to two-thirds.
“I also understand that there is a timeliness and time sensitivity and often it’s the case that members of council bring issues, particularly more often from their wards than anything else,” he noted. “I think the current system with just a little more courtesy in place can still work by simple majority, and our democracies by and large work by simple majorities.”
Clark was supported by Mayor Eisenberger, Bob Bratina and Russ Powers. Voting against were Jackson, Chad Collins, Scott Duvall, Lloyd Ferguson, Brian McHattie, Sam Merulla, Dave Mitchell, Bernie Morelli, Maria Pearson and Terry Whitehead.
CATCH (Citizens at City Hall) updates use transcripts and/or public documents to highlight information about Hamilton civic affairs that is not generally available in the mass media. Detailed reports of City Hall meetings can be reviewed at www.hamiltoncatch.org (http://www.hamiltoncatch.org/).